The National Consumer Commission (NCC) welcomes two separate High Court judgments dismissing appeals against rulings of the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT).
Unsuccessful appeal by Wingfield Motors:
In the Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa, the High Court dismissed, with costs, the appeal by Wingfield Motors (Pty) Ltd trading as Best Price for My Car (Wingfield Motors), primarily operating in the Western Cape. The High Court ordered Wingfield Motors to refund a consumer R568,000.00 (Five hundred and sixty-eight thousand Rand) and pay an administrative fine of R50,000.00 (Fifty thousand Rand).
Wingfield Motors appealed the NCT’s ruling, which was handed down in May 2024. In the ruling, the NCT had found that Wingfield Motors contravened sections 55 (2)(2) to (c) and 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The supplier was ordered to refund to the consumer the purchase price of the vehicle in the sum of R568,000.00 (Five hundred and sixty-eight thousand Rand). Wingfield Motors was further ordered to pay an administrative fine of R50 000.00 (fifty thousand rand).
Wingfield Motors contravened sections 55(2)(a) to (c) and 56(2) of the CPA. This was after Wingfield Motors sold a defective Ford Focus RS 2.3 EcoBoost AWD 5dr 2017 vehicle for R568,000.00 (Five hundred and sixty-eight thousand rand). The consumer discovered defects within three days of purchase, which required repairs estimated at over R62,000.00 (Sixty-two thousand Rand), and Wingfield Motors refused to repair the vehicle.
The High Court ruled that Wingfield Motor’s approach was detrimental to the very purpose of the CPA. The supplier could have easily settled this issue at the point when the consumer merely asked Wingfield to pay for the repairs. Wingfield refused, despite their obligation under section 56(2)(a) of the CPA.
Upon refusal to repair, the consumer cancelled the transaction for a refund. The supplier refused to refund the consumer. The refusal by Wingfield Motors to repair the vehicle and refund the consumer violated section 56(2)(a) and (b) of the CPA.
As the High Court ruled: “But for the intervention of the NCC and the Tribunal, the Customer would have been left out in the cold. And that would have completely undermined the provisions of the CPA.”
Unsuccessful appeal by Lambons:
Inthe Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, the High Court dismissed, with costs, the appeal of Lambons (Pty) Ltd (Lambons), operating in Kimberly. The High Court imposed an administrative penalty of R200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand Rand) and further required Lambons to comply with a Compliance Notice issued by the NCC.
Lambons referred the matter to the High Court, appealing the NCT’s decision to impose an administrative penalty of R200 000 (Two hundred thousand Rand) and the NCC’s Compliance Notice issued against the supplier in 2021.
The NCC received and investigated a consumer complaint against the supplier. The investigation showed that the consumer bought a GWM Steed 2.5 TCI single-cab 4×4 motor vehicle, which displayed numerous defects within the first month of delivery.
The NCC advised the consumer to file a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombuds of South Africa (MIOSA) for mediation and a quicker resolution. MIOSA recommended that the supplier repair the vehicle, but they failed. The consumer approached the High Court to compel the supplier to implement MIOSA’s recommendation.
The court ordered the supplier to implement MIOSA’s recommendation (fix the vehicle or refund the consumer) and the NCC to expedite its investigation into this matter. Upon finalisation, the NCC issued a Compliance Notice under section 112 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), compelling the supplier to fix the vehicle or refund the consumer. Lambons was given 30 days to comply with the Compliance Notice but ignored the Compliance Notice. Lambons only applied for an appeal 18 months (eighteen months) later, which is outside the prescribed process.
The High Court ruled that Lambons “…deliberately refused to comply with the Compliance Notice issued by the National Consumer Commission on 4 November 2021. The conduct, including withholding the vehicle and demanding storage fees, demonstrates a contemptuous disregard for the Commission’s authority.” Ruling on the Compliance Notice, the court confirmed that the Compliance Notice issued by the NCC was lawful, rational and procedurally fair.
The High Court further found the conduct of Lambons “…contemptuous and obstructive … towards the Commission and Tribunal throughout the proceedings” and awarded “a punitive cost order” against Lambons.
Welcoming both judgments, the Acting Commissioner, Mr Hardin Ratshisusu, said, “These judgments of the High Court show that firms that have no regard to consumer rights will face consequences. The judgments should deter suppliers from engaging in the same conduct and rather address and resolve consumer complaints expeditiously.”
Ends
Issued by: National Consumer Commission (NCC)
For media enquiries, contact:
Phetho Ntaba (Spokesperson/MLO)
082 809 2031